WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."

Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable TV and satellite radio and television. It could become part of a pending bill to boost fines on broadcasters who violate indecency restrictions or of an effort to overhaul U.S. communications laws.

If Stevens is successful, it could pose new problems for raunchy radio host Howard Stern, who has said he was forced to leave broadcast radio for satellite radio to avoid decency limits -- and Federal Communications Commission fines.

So far the restrictions have not applied to subscription services offered by companies like cable TV operators Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Inc. or XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., which recently signed Stern.

Last year the Senate Commerce Committee narrowly defeated an amendment to a bill boosting fines for indecency that would have extended such limits to cable and satellite services.

Sen. George Allen, a Commerce Committee member and Virginia Republican, told reporters he would be "hesitant to expand it to those" services.

While lawmakers and some parents groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off."

Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material and restrict indecent material, such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity, to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content.

"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.

A spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents cable operators, was not immediately available for comment.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well.

But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services. So far the White House has expressed support for the House bill, and made no public pronouncement about the Senate measure.

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."

I haven't quite wrapped my mind around this statement yet.

Taco John

03-01-2005, 12:02 PM

I love how he tagged this the "indecency era."

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 12:03 PM

This and Alberto Gonzalez' stated intent to crackdown on 'indecent' pornography should please lots of people here who would never indulge in indecent material let alone enjoy it regularly. :hmmm:

Bowser

03-01-2005, 12:09 PM

This and Alberto Gonzalez' stated intent to crackdown on 'indecent' pornography should please lots of people here who would never indulge in indecent material let alone enjoy it regularly. :hmmm:

If they don't want to watch it, then turn it the **** OFF!

I don't need a bunch of stuffed shirts telling me what is decent or not. You would think that these pissants have never heard of Freedom of Choice...

Taco John

03-01-2005, 12:20 PM

To make things even more hilarious... The FCC just ruled on "Saving Private Ryan." The FCC said its indecency and profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming. ROFL

FCC rejects 'Private Ryan' complaints

WASHINGTON (AP) - ABC's broadcast last Veterans Day of the Oscar-winning war movie Saving Private Ryan, which contains graphic violence and profanity, did not violate indecency guidelines, regulators ruled Monday.

The film contained "numerous expletives and other potentially offensive language generally as part of the soldiers' dialogue," the Federal Communications Commission said. "In light of the overall context in which this material is presented, the commission determined it was not indecent or profane," the five-member FCC said in a unanimous decision in denying complaints over the movie.

"This film is a critically acclaimed artwork that tells a gritty story - one of bloody battles and supreme heroism," FCC chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. "The horror of war and the enormous personal sacrifice it draws on cannot be painted in airy pastels."

Some complaints also cited the movie's violence, but the FCC said its indecency and profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming.

A spokeswoman for ABC in New York declined comment.

Sixty-six ABC affiliates, covering nearly one-third of the country, ultimately decided not to air Steven Spielberg's movie Nov. 11 due to skittishness over whether the film would be deemed indecent - even though the FCC in 2002 had already ruled it was not.

ABC broadcast the film uncut in 2001 and 2002. The movie opens with a violent depiction of the D-Day invasion and includes profanity.

Bowser

03-01-2005, 12:22 PM

Perfect. :shake:

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 12:25 PM

If they don't want to watch it, then turn it the **** OFF!

I don't need a bunch of stuffed shirts telling me what is decent or not. You would think that these pissants have never heard of Freedom of Choice...

Agreed, but if you (in the you general sense) voted for the guy you cannot turn around and :deevee: about YOUR freedoms being reduced when it wasn't concerning you that others freedoms were being reduced enough to change your support of him.

I mean, it's not like this was not EXPECTED to happen with this administration.

BigRedChief

03-01-2005, 12:25 PM

Yes, you are paying for this programming. It is different from free over the air tv. You must want and pay a fee to see this "indecent programmming". I'm always leary of others who tell us they know whats best for all of us.

htismaqe

03-01-2005, 12:25 PM

To make things even more hilarious... The FCC just ruled on "Saving Private Ryan." The FCC said its indecency and profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming. ROFL

FCC rejects 'Private Ryan' complaints

WASHINGTON (AP) - ABC's broadcast last Veterans Day of the Oscar-winning war movie Saving Private Ryan, which contains graphic violence and profanity, did not violate indecency guidelines, regulators ruled Monday.

The film contained "numerous expletives and other potentially offensive language generally as part of the soldiers' dialogue," the Federal Communications Commission said. "In light of the overall context in which this material is presented, the commission determined it was not indecent or profane," the five-member FCC said in a unanimous decision in denying complaints over the movie.

"This film is a critically acclaimed artwork that tells a gritty story - one of bloody battles and supreme heroism," FCC chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. "The horror of war and the enormous personal sacrifice it draws on cannot be painted in airy pastels."

Some complaints also cited the movie's violence, but the FCC said its indecency and profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming.

A spokeswoman for ABC in New York declined comment.

Sixty-six ABC affiliates, covering nearly one-third of the country, ultimately decided not to air Steven Spielberg's movie Nov. 11 due to skittishness over whether the film would be deemed indecent - even though the FCC in 2002 had already ruled it was not.

ABC broadcast the film uncut in 2001 and 2002. The movie opens with a violent depiction of the D-Day invasion and includes profanity.

One more reason that we're backwards when compared to the rest of the 1st world.

We glorify violence but can't stand to talk about sex.

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 12:27 PM

One more reason that we're backwards when compared to the rest of the 1st world.

We glorify violence but can't stand to talk about sex.

REP!!! :clap: :thumb:

htismaqe

03-01-2005, 12:27 PM

Agreed, but if you (in the you general sense) voted for the guy you cannot turn around and :deevee: about YOUR freedoms being reduced when it wasn't concerning you that others freedoms were being reduced enough to change your support of him.

I mean, it's not like this was not EXPECTED to happen with this administration.

This is CONGRESS, not this "administration".

While lawmakers and some parents groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off."

Try not to be an idiot your entire life.

CosmicPal

03-01-2005, 12:27 PM

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."

Well then, how the phuck are you supposed to SET a standard without establishing censorship?

ENDelt260

03-01-2005, 12:29 PM

Well then, how the phuck are you supposed to SET a standard without establishing censorship?
Maybe you just set the standard, but never enforce it.

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 12:29 PM

This is CONGRESS, not this "administration".

While lawmakers and some parents groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off."

Try not to be an idiot your entire life.

Really, Alberto Gonzalez is in Congress?

And are you stating that if this bill passes through a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY Congress the President would veto it because he's not in agreement?

htismaqe

03-01-2005, 12:35 PM

Really, Alberto Gonzalez is in Congress?

And are you stating that if this bill passes through a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY Congress the President would veto it because he's not in agreement?

What does Alberto Gonzales have to do with anything? I don't see his name in the article.

And yes, I do believe the President would veto it if he doesn't agree. He's not afraid to cross his party.

WASHINGTON (BP)—The U.S. Department of Justice has announced it will appeal a recent setback on obscenity, providing a glimmer of hope it may prosecute such cases with more ardor under a new attorney general.

The department will ask the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a federal judge’s decision dismissing an obscenity indictment against Extreme Associates, the DOJ announced Feb. 16. The 10-count indictment dismissed in January charged the Los Angeles-based business with conspiracy to distribute obscenity, as well as disseminating obscene material through the mail and the Internet.

New Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a written statement the DOJ “places a premium on the First Amendment right to free speech, but certain activities do not fall within those protections, such as selling or distributing obscene materials. The Department of Justice remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases.”

Some pro-family organizations have questioned the Bush administration’s commitment to the fight against obscenity, however. While they charged the Clinton administration with a constant failure to prosecute obscenity under former Attorney General Janet Reno, they also were displeased with the DOJ’s record on obscenity under Bush’s first attorney general, John Ashcroft.

When it was revealed in early February Adelphia Communications Corp., the country’s fifth largest cable company, would begin offering hard-core pornography to subscribers in Southern California, the American Family Association blamed the Department of Justice. “Adelphia feels safe in offering the illegal obscenity because they know that the Department of Justice will not prosecute them,” AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said in a written release.

The department’s announcement of its appeal was made only two days after Gonzales was sworn in as attorney general Feb. 14.

In dismissing the indictment at Extreme Associates’ request in a western Pennsylvania federal court, Judge Gary Lancaster referenced a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court opinion overturning state prohibitions on homosexual sodomy. The Lawrence v. Texas decision, Lancaster wrote, “can be reasonably interpreted as holding that public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public’s sense of morality.”

If Lancaster’s decision is upheld, the DOJ said it was concerned the ruling “would undermine not only the federal obscenity laws, but all laws based on shared views of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy.”

Critics of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Lawrence ruling warned the majority’s reasoning could produce such results.

htismaqe

03-01-2005, 12:46 PM

BLAH BLAH BLAH

You can't just manufacture a connection.

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 12:48 PM

You can't just manufacture a connection.

There is a connection. Their attack on 'obscenity' and 'indecency' will be two prong one through the cabinet level and one through the Congress.

They hid nothing about their intentions during the election.

The article lists Adelphia (cable outlet) as one of the companies being targeted. THERE is your 'connection.'

When it was revealed in early February Adelphia Communications Corp., the country’s fifth largest cable company, would begin offering hard-core pornography to subscribers in Southern California, the American Family Association blamed the Department of Justice. “Adelphia feels safe in offering the illegal obscenity because they know that the Department of Justice will not prosecute them,” AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said in a written release.

Adelphia has since backed down from their offer... :hmmm:

Taco John

03-01-2005, 12:50 PM

Denise, you ruin threads.

If this was simply just about this administration, then explain to me the Tipper Gore Phenomenon.

htismaqe

03-01-2005, 12:52 PM

Denise, you ruin threads.

If this was simply just about this administration, then explain to me the Tipper Gore Phenomenon.

She's never heard of the PMRC.

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 12:53 PM

Denise, you ruin threads.

If this was simply just about this administration, then explain to me the Tipper Gore Phenomenon.

Tipper Gore was (rightly) worried about indecent lyrics being listened to by children so ALL SHE WANTED was LABELING.

Which, in retrospect merely points out the attractive music to buy for some kids. :rolleyes: :banghead:

And under the cover of the labeling the lyrics have gone completely in the gutter.

redhed

03-01-2005, 01:05 PM

Wow.
Again with the attempts to regulate/legislate opinion.
One person's "Oh no!" is another person's "Oh yeah!"

But it's all for the children, so it's OK, right? :rolleyes:

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 01:08 PM

Wow.
Again with the attempts to regulate/legislate opinion.
One person's "Oh no!" is another person's "Oh yeah!"

But it's all for the children, so it's OK, right? :rolleyes:

No, artists can produce whatever they please. The PMRC wanted something along the lines of movie ratings for the record industry. I believe her intentions were good but actually opened the door to more obscene lyrics...unintended consequences.

That being said, even Frank Zappa, Gore's largest critic, later admitted she was not trying to censor or stop artist freedom.

Mr. Laz

03-01-2005, 01:11 PM

You can't just manufacture a connection.
not wanting to get into this too deeply.... but i don't see how you can disconnect them too much:

a republican president

the head of the FCC(hired by the president)

a republican senate

a republican congress

hard to believe that they are working together is some form or fashion. I don't see anyway that the head of the FCC isn't doing what Bush wants him to do.

republican dominated government ... they can pretty much legislate what they want.

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 01:12 PM

not wanting to get into this too deeply.... but i don't see how you can disconnect them too much:

a republican president

the head of the FCC(hired by the president)

a republican senate

a republican congress

hard to believe that they are working together is some form or fashion. I don't see anyway that the head of the FCC isn't doing what Bush wants him to do.

republican dominated government ... they can pretty much legislate what they want.

You can't unless you have blinders on...

and you forgot Republican AG who has vowed to take Ashcroft's iniatives even further.

redhed

03-01-2005, 01:14 PM

No, artists can produce whatever they please. The PMRC wanted something along the lines of movie ratings for the record industry. I believe her intentions were good but actually opened the door to more obscene lyrics...unintended consequences.

That being said, even Frank Zappa, Gore's largest critic, later admitted she was not trying to censor or stop artist freedom.

I'm not talking about the recording industry. I'm talking about broadcastsing, like the article that started this discussion.

htismaqe

03-01-2005, 01:15 PM

hard to believe that they are working together is some form or fashion. I don't see anyway that the head of the FCC isn't doing what Bush wants him to do.

The FCC handled telecom regulation in a way that Bush didn't want them to. Why should this be any different?

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 01:27 PM

I'm not talking about the recording industry. I'm talking about broadcastsing, like the article that started this discussion.

Oh, sorry.

Well, I think it's BS and going to get worse before it get's better. The guy was sworn in 5 weeks ago and already we have these issues surfacing as major issues. :shake:

Mr. Laz

03-01-2005, 01:30 PM

The FCC handled telecom regulation in a way that Bush didn't want them to. Why should this be any different?
and isn't he gone now?

but whatever... im not going there

your right ... Bush has no influence over his own administration at all.

and Carl peterson is completely at the mercy of his own coaching staff

Yeah, he just hates that republican congress and I am sure he will veto this censorship bill if they send it to him.

BIG_DADDY

03-01-2005, 01:53 PM

not wanting to get into this too deeply.... but i don't see how you can disconnect them too much:

a republican president

the head of the FCC(hired by the president)

a republican senate

a republican congress

hard to believe that they are working together is some form or fashion. I don't see anyway that the head of the FCC isn't doing what Bush wants him to do.

republican dominated government ... they can pretty much legislate what they want.

Yea it's really a shame the Demorats can't get their act together and give us a decent moderate instead of these socialist liberal cowards. I would have definately voted for decent moderate from the Democratic party. Can anyone tell me why we only get socialist scum from the left?

Lzen

03-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Hey, I'm a conservative and a Christian. But I agree that we don't need censorship. I will say that we should wait and see exactly what this means before jumping off the deep end. Frankly, this story doesn't really explain exactly what they are planning.

That being said, I don't think you can legislate good parenting. And if that ends up being what Sen. Stevens is trying to do then he's wrong. But I think everyone is a little paranoid for nothing here. I seriously doubt anything like that would get very far.

For my family, we just keep an eye on what the kids watch. I also have certain program ratings password protected. I don't allow them to watch certain movies, either. But other parents don't care. My sister in law let her 7 year old watch Saw. And my 8 year old's friend has seen it, too. That IMO, is poor parenting. But that seems to be the norm these days. Like I said before, you can't legilate good parenting. I have no problem with trying to help parents but, not at the expense of freedom.

Cochise

03-01-2005, 02:34 PM

You know what would solve all this? If you could buy cable by the channel.

Sure, you can block channels or whatever if you have the right equipment, or just turn it off, or whatever. But, there's some problem with all that people are going to bring up. I don't have a cable box, my cable provider doesn't offer it, blah blah.

I think it's an interesting prospect. That way, whatever was on that channel, you requested and are paying for, and it's not like it is now, where if I want to watch cable news I have to pay for a bunch of other channels that I don't want in the package.

Cochise

03-01-2005, 02:36 PM

Hey, I'm a conservative and a Christian. But I agree that we don't need censorship. I will say that we should wait and see exactly what this means before jumping off the deep end...

That being said, I don't think you can legislate good parenting...

Agree on all counts

Saulbadguy

03-01-2005, 02:41 PM

Hey, I'm a conservative and a Christian. But I agree that we don't need censorship. I will say that we should wait and see exactly what this means before jumping off the deep end. Frankly, this story doesn't really explain exactly what they are planning.

That being said, I don't think you can legislate good parenting. And if that ends up being what Sen. Stevens is trying to do then he's wrong. But I think everyone is a little paranoid for nothing here. I seriously doubt anything like that would get very far.

For my family, we just keep an eye on what the kids watch. I also have certain program ratings password protected. I don't allow them to watch certain movies, either. But other parents don't care. My sister in law let her 7 year old watch Saw. And my 8 year old's friend has seen it, too. That IMO, is poor parenting. But that seems to be the norm these days. Like I said before, you can't legilate good parenting. I have no problem with trying to help parents but, not at the expense of freedom.
:thumb:

memyselfI

03-01-2005, 03:44 PM

For my family, we just keep an eye on what the kids watch. I also have certain program ratings password protected. I don't allow them to watch certain movies, either. But other parents don't care. My sister in law let her 7 year old watch Saw. And my 8 year old's friend has seen it, too. That IMO, is poor parenting. But that seems to be the norm these days. Like I said before, you can't legilate good parenting. I have no problem with trying to help parents but, not at the expense of freedom.

:thumb: Bravo!

Last night at our nightly family sit down dinner my 12 year old informed me that his friend said she saw "Sideways" and could not believe it was nominated for an Acadamy Award because is was terrible. My husband and I were floored that her parents would take her to see it. Especially since, according to my son, she is one of the most politically conservative girls in his social studies class. But, for whatever reason they did. :rolleyes: :shake:

It will be these same folks who will lament the MAKING of such a movie... :banghead:

Mr. Laz

03-01-2005, 05:52 PM

Yea it's really a shame the Demorats can't get their act together and give us a decent moderate instead of these socialist liberal cowards. I would have definately voted for decent moderate from the Democratic party. Can anyone tell me why we only get socialist scum from the left?
i don't disagree

the democratic leadership just sucks @ss ... and seem to be getting their political doinks handed to them at every turn.

idiots on the left<------- :( ------->sanctimonious bastards on the right

BIG_DADDY

03-01-2005, 07:54 PM

idiots on the left<------- :( ------->sanctimonious bastards on the right

:clap:

|Zach|

03-01-2005, 09:11 PM

idiots on the left<------- :( ------->sanctimonious bastards on the right